Velvet sambar deer
-
Upload
semiadi1032 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Velvet sambar deer
-
7/25/2019 Velvet sambar deer
1/5
B I O D I V E R S I T A S ISSN: 1412-033X
Volume 16, Number 2, October 2015 E-ISSN: 2085-4722
Pages: 156-160 DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d160209
The nutritional quality of captive sambar deer (Rusa unicolor
brookei Hose, 1893) velvet antler
GONO SEMIADI, YULIASRI JAMAL
Research Centre for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jl. Raya Jakarta-Bogor Km. 46, Cibinong Bogor 16911, West Java, Indonesia.
Tel./Fax.:+62-21-8765056;email: [email protected]
Manuscript received: 7 May 2015. Revision accepted: 30 June 2015.
Semiadi G, Jamal Y. 2015. The nutritional quality of captive sambar deer (Rusa unicolor brookei Hose, 1893) velvet antler.
Biodiversitas 16: 156-160. Deer farming has been a well-developed agriculture diversification worldwide since 1970s. To the present
time information concerning the nutrient value of velvet antler of sambar deer (Rusa unicolor brookei Hose, 1893) is limited. Therefore,
a study on the nutritional quality of velvet antler of captive sambar deer was conducted. Velvet antlers were obtained from captivesambar deer in Penajam Paser Utara, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, and were analyzed for its nutritional quality from the hard and soft
parts. The results showed that fresh weight of a pair of velvet antler (approx. 70 days post hard antler cast) was 523.1 g (SE = 49.99). In
the soft part of the velvet antler, ash content was 25.9% DM (SE= 0.78) as compared to 40.4% DM (SE = 1.07) in hard part, whilst the
lipid and protein contents from the soft part were 3.3% DM (SE = 0.20) and 70.8% DM (SE = 2.07), respectively, higher compared to
those in the hard part being 1.9% DM (SE = 0.12) and 59.5% DM (SE = 1.92), respectively. From the study it can be concluded that the
production of velvet antler from captive sambar deer seemed to be far from its genetic potency, and the nutritional qualities of the velvet
antler contents were not different from the red deer Cervus elaphus.
Key words: nutritional quality, production,Rusa unicolor brookei, sambar deer, velvet antler
INTRODUCTION
Deer farming has been one of the fastest developed new
livestock diversification worldwide since 1970s (van den
Berg and Garrick 1997, Hoffman and Wiklund 2006). At
present, the species being bred are not only limited to
temperate origin species, but also from tropical part, such
as rusa deer (Rusa timorensis) and sambar deer (Rusa
unicolor; Sookhareea et al. 2001, Haigh 2002), although
farming the sambar deer is very limited to Australia,
Malaysia, and Thailand. The main products of the deer
farm are venison and velvet antler, with by-products known
as pitzel, dry tail and sinew are still having high market
values in oriental markets, such as in Korea and China(Kong and But 1985; Kim 2001; Kim et al. 2004).
The culture of using velvet antler among Chinese
medical practitioners as part of their traditional medicine
has been known for hundred years. Some claims on those
Chinese beliefs on the power of velvet antler in
maintaining health, particularly related to rheumatism andthe improvement of body vitality have been scientifically
proven (Allen et al. 2002; Frolov et al. 2001; Shin et al.
2001; Sim and Sunwoo 2001). Study also showed that the
extract of velvet antler of Formosan sambar deer (Rusa
unicolor swinhoei) has the potential as the anti-infectiveactivity against pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus (Dai et
al. 2011). This accelerates the development of food
supplement industry from velvet antler origin in the westernpart, in the forms of powder, slices, extract or tonic.
Indonesia has three native deer species; the Javan deer,
sambar deer and Bawean deer (Axis kuhlii), besides the
deer introduced from India, spotted deer (Axis axis). The
distribution of sambar deer in Indonesia is limited to
Sumatra and Kalimantan islands (Wilson and Reeder
2013), whereas in Kalimantan the utilization of sambar
venison is very high through poaching activities. From one
district, no less than 120 heads of sambar permonth were
poached, providing no less than 234 kg venison that was
sold in traditional market. Average of carcass weight from
stag was 74.99 kg and from hind was 63.06 kg (Semiadi et
al. 2004).
Under the Indonesian Wildlife Law, the native deer
species are protected animals. However, they are possible
to be utilized once has been bred in captivity. In 2002 aDecree of the Minister of Agriculture was issued
concerning the inclusion of deer as prospective livestock.
However, the execution of this regulation is far from the
reality. The latest Indonesian Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Law (UU no. 18/2009) has made possible for
wildlife animal that has been bred in captivity, specificallyfor production purposes, to be adopted as a domesticated
animal. The development of deer farming in Indonesia was
initiated in 1990 by the establishment of a pilot project of
sambar deer farm (Rusa unicolor brookei, Hose 1893) in
Penajam Paser Utara District, East Kalimantan. At present,the number of deer being bred reaches 301 deer in an area
of 15 ha paddock (IG Ngurah, pers. comm.).
To the present time, information related to the
production of sambar deer is still very limited (Ismail and
Hanoon 2008), and so does with the velvet antler quality
(Jamal et al. 2005). Therefore, as part of the developmentstrategy of deer farming in Indonesia, it is necessary that
-
7/25/2019 Velvet sambar deer
2/5
SEMIADI & JAMALThe nutritional quality of captive sambar deer 157
the information related to the quality of velvet antler of
sambar deer and the possibility of utilizing them as a foodsupplement is available. The purpose of this study was to
understand the quality of captive sambar velvet antler from
its nutritional values.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research was conducted in a sambar deer farm in
Penajam Paser Utara District, East Kalimantan. Velvetantlers were harvested from eight mature (> 4 years) stags,
placed in a drop floor crush while velvet antler cutting was
conducted. The cutting time for velvet antler was
determined based on the antler physical condition, in which
the main beam has not yet branched.
Method of velvet cutting followed Wilson et. al. (2000).
On each of velvet antlers, around its ring block, local
anesthetic injections were administered using Lidocaine(2% lidocaine hydrochloride) approximately 6-8 ml/antler.
The subcutaneous injections were circled in four to five
places using a syringe of 1" x 20 G. After the injection,
approximately 3-5 minutes later, tourniquet was placed
around each ring block and velvet antler was cut.
Once it had been cut, the harvested velvet antlers were
directly turned upside down and slanted 150 for five
minutes to avoid excessive blood lost. They were cleaned
from dust, weighed, and the length and diameter of theantler were then measured using polypropylene meter tape
and digital micro-caliper (Yamato, Japan), respectively,
twice each, then were put into plastic bag, labeled and
stored in a freezer (-5oC). Velvet antler diameter wasmeasured at the mid-point of the antler length. Prior being
transported to the laboratory, the velvet antlers were putinto ice boxes containing blue chips ice cooler to maintain
their freezing level during the traveling. The time of arrival
in laboratory was six hours with the antlers condition were
still frozen, and then put into a deep freezer (-20oC) until
the laboratory analysis process.Before the velvet antler being processed, the antlers
were thawed and the soft hair was burnt on a pressurized
gas Bunsen burner. Left and right parts of the soft velvet
antler part were then manually sliced thinly with a sharp
knife, with a thickness of 3-5 mm, until it reached the hard
part (semi ossified) that could not be cut manually byordinary knife. The hard part was then cut into small pieces
using a chopping knife. All samples that had been cut (soft
and hard parts) were freeze dried for 18-24 hours, then
ground using hammer mill (Retch Muhle, Germany) to
pass through a sieve of 1 mm.
Analyses of nutrient content of antler were only doneon the samples taken from the right side of the antler,
representing the hard and soft parts. Moisture content was
analyzed by putting into a ventilated oven at 105oC for 18
hours. The ash content was determined using a furnace at
550oC for 12 hours (AOAC 2005). All analysis wasconducted in Nutrition Laboratory, Zoological Division of
the Research Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of
Sciences (LIPI), Cibinong Bogor, West Java.
Mineral content analysis was conducted using the
Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS), for amino acidswith chromatography technique (HPLC), fatty acids with
gas chromatography technique (GC), total lipid with
soxhlet technique and total nitrogen with Kjehdhal
technique (AOAC 2005), conducted at the IntegratedChemical Laboratory, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural
Science, Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB), Bogor, West
Java. The conversion to crude protein content was done by
a multiplying factor of 6.25 to the nitrogen content.
Analyses of chemical components of antler were done
on the samples taken from the left part of the antler,
representing the hard and soft parts. Each sample wasextracted with ethanol absolute placed in shakers (100 rpm
per minute). The addition of alcohol solvent was done three
times every 24 hours, 100 ml each, until reaching a total
volume of 300 ml for each sample. The result of ethanol
extraction was then evaporated using rotating evaporator at
50oC until it was free from the solvent. This process wasconducted at the Phytochemistry Laboratory, Botany
Division, Research Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute
of Sciences (LIPI), Cibinong, West Java.
The analysis on chemical compounds from the extract
was carried out at the Department of Natural Product
Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical
Science at Fukuyama University, Hiroshima, Japan using
Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS system
electron impact, Shimadzu Qp-5000, Japan), using the TC-
17 column (L=30 m, = 0.25 mm, GL Science USA). Theinjection volume was 0.1 ul. The carrier gas was helium
with a gas speed flow of 1.36 ml/minute and a column
pressure of 90 kPa. The column temperature wasprogrammed to be 100oC to 270oC with a temperature
increase of 3oC per minute. The detector temperature
(quadruple) was programmed to be constant at 270oC with
energy of 1.25 kV. The injector temperature was 300oC.
Identification of each peak was done using spectrum mass
authentic from the National Institute Standard of
Technology (NIST) library, ver. 6.2. Data were analyzed
using the general linear model procedure of SAS ver. 9.0
(SAS 2002). Whenever appropriate data were analyzed
either by regression for the antler morphometry, and T-test
or factorial analysis between hard and soft parts against its
nutrient values (Steel and Torrie 1980).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Due to the lack of good management practice in
managing stags for velvet antler production, it was difficult
to obtain accurate data concerning the age of velvet antler
growth when it was harvested. Therefore, observation on
the shape of the main beam which almost to branch was
used as an indicator for the optimum cutting time to obtain
the best quality of velvet antler. On red deer (Cervus
elaphus), cutting age of velvet antler was at 60-65 days
post hard antler drop (Sunwoo and Sim 2001), coincided
with unbranched condition of the main beam. However,from this study it was predicted that the ages of velvet
-
7/25/2019 Velvet sambar deer
3/5
B I O D I V E R S I T A S 16 (2): 156-160, Ocotober 2015158
antler of sambar deer that were harvested had never been more
than 70 days old post antler cast (A Trasodiharjo pers. comm.)The fresh mean weight of a pair sambar deer velvet
antler was 523.1 g (SE = 49.99; n = 8) with the average
overall moisture content of the velvet antler being 74.1 %
(SE = 1.78; n= 8). The soft part of the velvet antler had itsmoisture content of 30.1% (SE = 4.0; n= 8) of the total dry
matter weight. The velvet antler dimensions of the right
and left parts showed a symmetrical shape, therefore no
significant differences were found (Table 1). However, one
antler did not have its first tine. The correlation between
the length and diameter of the main beam was much higher
(R2= 0.75; p
-
7/25/2019 Velvet sambar deer
4/5
SEMIADI & JAMALThe nutritional quality of captive sambar deer 159
The essential amino acids concentration showed that the
soft part had higher content than that in the hard part. Jeonet al. (2004) showed that feed sources created differences
in velvet protein, lipid, amino acid and mineral
composition. From this study, glycine was the amino acid
with the highest concentration in both parts. Comparing theamino acid composition in velvet antler from red deer and
sambar deer, it shows the consistency of glycine as the
highest concentration component among all amino acids.
However, the concentration in red deer is higher than in
sambar deer (15.58% vs. 9.07%; Sim and Sunwoo, 2001).
It was further reported that the amino acid group of aspartic
acid, glycine, alanine and glutamic acid were the majorcomponents in temperate deer velvet antler. By observing
cholesterol concentration or its derivates, velvet antler
contained relatively low cholesterol compounds compared
to other saturated fatty acids. The ethanol extract of velvet
antler from both the soft and hard parts, consists of
unsaturated long chain fatty acids, carboxylic acids withamine chains and one compound of cholesterol derivative.
Minerals content showed that there was a high
significant interaction (p
-
7/25/2019 Velvet sambar deer
5/5
B I O D I V E R S I T A S 16 (2): 156-160, Ocotober 2015160
Table 7. Mineral compositions of red deer velvet antler by infra
red spectroscopy technique from freeze dry sample (Haines and
Suttie 2001).
Components Mean RangeAsh (%) 37.0 7.6-61.0
Fat (%) 0.56 0.01-1.72
N (%) 8.5 5.3-12.6
Ca (%) 12.2 0.1-22.0
P (%) 5.9 0.3-9.6
Fe (ppm) 347 33-970
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors wish to thank to Dr. Andria Agusta of
Phytochemistry Laboratory, Botany Division, Research
Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI),Cibinong Bogor, West Java, for his generous time in
analyzing the samples which could not be done in our
laboratory. We are also grateful to the Animal Husbandry
Division, East Kalimantan Province c/q Sambar Deer
Captive Breeding Project management in Penajam Paser
Utara, East Kalimantan for allowing us to conduct thestudy.
REFERENCES
Allen M., Oberle K, Grace M, Russell A. 2002. Elk velvet antler in
rheumatoid arthritis: phase II trial. Biol Res for Nurs 3: 111-118.AOAC [Association of Official Analytical Chemists]. 2005. Official
Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. AOAC, Virginia.
Bubenik GA, Miller KLV, Lister AL, Oosborn DA, Bartos L, van DerKraak GJ. 2005. Testosterone and estradiol concentrations in serum,
velvet skin, and growing antler bone of male White-Tailed deer. J
Exp Zool 303A:186-192.Dai TY, Chen KN, Huang IN, Hong WS, Wang SY, Chen YP, Kuo CY,
Chen MJ. 2011. The Anti-infective Effects of Velvet Antler of
Formosan Sambar Deer (Cervus unicolor swinhoei) onStaphylococcus aureus infected mice. Evidence-based
Complementary and Alternative Medicine. eCAM 2011, 534069. Doi:
10.1155/2011/534069Frolov NA, Skebalin AI, Letchamo W. 2001. The antler industry in Rusia:
Antler nutraceutical development. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH, Hudson
RJ, Jeon BT (eds). Antler Science and Product Technology,ASPTRC, Edmonton.
Haigh JC, Hudson RJ. 1993. Farming wapiti and red deer. Mosby YearBook. St. Louis.
Haigh JC. 2002. A history of deer farming. In: Wood JB (ed). Proceedings
of the 2002 NADeFA Annual Conference & The World Deer
Farming Congress III. NADeFA, Austin, Texas USA.Haines SR, Suttie JM. 2001. Near-infrared spectroscopy for antler
composition analysis. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH, Hudson RJ, Jeon BT
(eds). Antler Science and Product Technology, ASPTRC, Edmonton.Hoffman LC, Wiklund E. 2006. Game and venison - meat for the modern
consumer. Meat Sci 74: 197-208.
Ismail D, Jiwan, D. 2013. Growth and reproductive performance ofsambar deer in Sabah Forest Reserve of Sarawak, Malaysia. Trop
Anim Health Product 45: 1469-1476.
Ismail D, Hanoon NAN. 2008. Chemical composition, palatability andphysical characteristics of venison from farmed deer. Anim Sci J 79:
498-503.
Jamal Y, Semiadi G, Nugraha RTP. 2005. The quality of velvet antler of
captive sambar deer (Cervus unicolor). Berkala Ilmiah Biologi 4:325-336. [Indonesian].
Jeon BT, Moon SH, Kim MH. 2004. Research on chemical composition
and efficacy of velvet antler in Korea. In: Suttie JM, Haines SR, Li C
(eds). Proceedings Advances in Antler Science and ProductTechnology. Taieri Print, Fairfield, Dunedin.
Jeon BT, Moon SH. 2001. A review of feeding systems for velvetproduction. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH, Hudson RJ, Jeon BT (eds).
Antler Science and Product Technology, ASPTRC, Edmonton.
Kang SJ, Shin JH, Yung YJ, Lee JP, Jang SY, Non DH. 2001. Importersperspective on velvet antler removal and quality standart. Korean
Regulation and Quality Specifications of Velvet Antler. In: Sim JS,
Sunwoo HH, Hudson RJ, Jeon BT (eds). Antler Science and ProductTechnology, ASPTRC, Edmonton.
Kim HY, Park YK, Kang MH. 2004. Effect of deer antler drink
supplementation on plasma lipid profiles and antioxidant status intype 2 diabetic patients. J. Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 33: 1147-1153.
Kim JJ. 2001. Consumers perspective on production, marketing andconsumption of deer and antler in Korea. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH,
Hudson RJ, Jeon BT (eds). Antler Science and Product Technology,
ASPTRC, Edmonton.Kong YC, But PPH. 1985. Deer-The ultimate medicinal animal. R Soc NZ Bull 22: 311-326.
Liangpaiboon S, Sangkhaloet S, Thongprayun A. 1996. Velvet antlerremoving of Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor equinus). J Wild Thail 5:
110-115.
Mahan LK, Arlin M. 1989. Food, Nutrition and Diet Therapy 8th ed.Harcout Brace Jovanovich. Inc., Philadelphia.
SAS. 2002. SAS Language. SAS Institute Inc. Cary.
Semiadi G, Adhi IGMJ, Muchsinin M. 2004. Hunting and utilization ofsambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in East Kalimantan. Jurnal Peternakan
dan Lingkungan 10: 25-29. [Indonesian].
Semiadi G. 1997. Characteristics of Timorensis deer antler (Cervustimorensis). Biota 2: 82-87 [Indonesian].
Shin KH, Yun-Choi HS, Lim SS, Won DH, Kim JK. 2001. Immuno-
stimulating, anti stress and anti-thrombotic effects of unossifiedvelvet antler. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH, Hudson RJ, Jeon BT (eds).
Antler Science and Product Technology, ASPTRC, Edmonton.
Sim JS, Sunwoo HH. 2001. Antler for the newly emerging fungsionalfood market in North America. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH, Hudson RJ,
Jeon BT (eds). Antler Science and Product Technology, ASPTRC,
Edmonton.Sookhareea R, Taylor DG, Dryden GMcL, Woodford KB. 2001. Primal
joints and hind-leg cuts of entire and castrated Javan rusa (Cervus
timorensis russa) stags. Meat Sci 58: 9-15.Steel RGD, Torrie JH. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics 2nd ed.
McGraw Hill, New York.
Sunwoo HH, Sim JS. 2001. Morphological, chemical and molecularcharacteristics of active components in velvet antler for biomedicine
and nutraceuticals. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH, Hudson RJ, Jeon BT
(eds). Antler Science and Product Technology, ASPTRC, Edmonton.
Van den Berg GHJ, Garrick DJ. 1997. Inheritance of adult velvet antler
weights and live weights in farmed red deer. Livest Prod Sci 49: 287-
295.Wang Q, Zhang H, Wang Y, Yang C. 2004. Composition of Chinese
velvet antler. In: Suttie JM, Haines SR, Li C (eds). Proceedings
Advances in Antler Science and Product Technology. Taieri Print,Fairfield, Dunedin.
Wilson E, Reeder DAM. 2013. Cervidae. Mammal Species of the World.
A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rded). Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore.
Wilson PR, Stafford KJ, Thomas DG, Mellor DJ. 2000. Evaluation of
techniques for lignocaine hydrochloride analgesia of velvet antler ofadult stags. N Z Vet J 48: 182-187.
Yun KC, Ling WM , Ren KS, Hua WC. 2009. Chemical composition
analysis of the four part velvets from Formosan sambar deer. JTaiwan Livest Res 42: 245-253.